QE Pains and Gains

Reprinted from Bloomberg.

The Unintended Consequences of Quantitative Easing

Asset inflation doesn’t have to be bad. Flush governments could invest in education and infrastructure.
August 21, 2017, 11:00 PM PDT

Quantitative easing, which saw major central banks buying government bonds outright and quadrupling their balance sheets since 2008 to $15 trillion, has boosted asset prices across the board. That was the aim: to counter a severe economic downturn and to save a financial system close to the brink. Little thought, however, was put into the longer-term consequences of these actions.

From 2008 to 2015, the nominal value of the global stock of investable assets has increased by about 40 percent, to over $500 trillion from over $350 trillion. Yet the real assets behind these numbers changed little, reflecting, in effect, the asset-inflationary nature of quantitative easing. The effects of asset inflation are as profound as those of the better-known consumer inflation.

Consumer price inflation erodes savings and the value of fixed earnings as prices rise. Aside from the pain consumers feel, the economy’s pricing signals get mixed up. Companies may unknowingly sell at a loss, while workers repeatedly have to ask for wage increases just to keep up with prices. The true losers though are people with savings, which see their value in real purchasing power severely diminished.

John Maynard Keynes famously said that inflation is a way for governments to “confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.” Critically, inflation creates much social tension: “While the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at the confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth.”

Asset inflation, it turns out, is remarkably similar. First, it impedes creative destruction by setting a negative long-term real interest rate. This allows companies that no longer generate enough income to pay a positive return on capital to continue as usual rather than being restructured. Thus the much-noted growth of zombie companies is one consequence of asset price inflation. Thus also the unreasonable leverage and price observed in real estate, with the credit risks it entails for the future.

Second, it also generates artificial winners and losers. The losers are most found among the aging middle class, who, in order to maintain future consumption levels, will now have to increase their savings. Indeed, the savings made by working people on stagnant wages effectively generates less future income because investable assets are now more expensive. The older the demographics, the more pronounced this effect. Germany, for instance, had a contraction of nearly 4 percent of gross domestic product in consumer spending from 2009 to 2016.

The winners are the wealthy, people with savings at the beginning of the process, who saw the nominal value of their assets skyrocket. But, as with consumer inflation, the biggest winner is the state, which now owns through its monetary authority, a large part of its own debt, effectively paying interest to itself, and a much lower one at that. For when all is accounted for, asset inflation is a monetary tax.

The most striking similarity between consumer price inflation and asset inflation is its potential to cause social disruption. In the 1970s workers resorted to industrial action to bargain for wage increases in line with price increases.

Today, the weakened middle class, whose wages have declined for decades, is increasingly angry at society’s wealthiest members. It perceives much of their recent wealth to be ill-gotten, not resulting from true economic wealth creation [and they are correct], and seeks social justice through populist movements outside of the traditional left-right debate. The QE monetary disruption almost certainly contributed to the protest votes that have been observed in the Western world.

The central banks now bear a large responsibility. If they ignore the political impact of the measures they took, they will exacerbate a politically volatile situation. If, on the other hand, the gains made by the state from QE can be channeled to true economic wealth creation and redistribution, they will have saved the day.

This is entirely possible. Rather than debating how and how fast to end quantitative easing, the central bank assets generated by this program should be put into a huge fund for education and infrastructure. The interest earned on these assets could finance real public investment, like research, education and retraining. [That’s fine, but it does little to compensate for the massive transfer of existing wealth that is causing the political and social dislocations, such as unsustainable urban housing costs.]

If the proceeds of QE are invested in growth-expanding policies, the gain will help finance tomorrow’s retirements, and the government-induced asset inflation can be an investment, not simply a tax.

Advertisements

UBI, or Something Better?

What’s odd about this discussion on Universal Basic Income below is that nobody successful in Silicon Valley participates in a UBI scheme, nor would they. They rely on risk-taking, equity, and reward. Not sure why they don’t advocate this for everybody – after all, because of the way risk is assigned to asset ownership, labor ends up taking all kinds of risk, yet almost never participates in the rewards to that risk. Instead they get a one-time bonus or profit-sharing.

But Zuckerberg would never accept those terms, either now or before he made his first dollar. It looks to me that Silicon valley tech supports redistribution in order to make their outsized gains from network effects more politically palatable.

Unfortunately, this critic of Zuckerberg and Silicon Valley in general wants to double down on failed tax and redistribution schemes instead of empowering people to participate in the risks and rewards of capitalist entrepreneurial success.

“He (or She) who is without capital in a capitalist society is little more than a wage slave and a captive consumer.” 

Another truism about the future: In a world run by robots, he who owns and controls the robots is king. Make sure you own your robot!

Original article here.

What Mark Zuckerberg Gets Wrong About UBI

New Republic, July 7, 2017

By Clio Chang

It’s no secret that tech bros love universal basic income. Sam Altman of Y Combinator is funding a UBI pilot program in Oakland, California, in part because he was inspired by Star Trek. Tesla’s Elon Musk supports the policy because he realizes that the aggressive automation caused by the tech industry will make UBI “necessary.” This week, as part of his “I’m-not-running-for-president” tour around the country, Mark Zuckerberg visited Homer, Alaska, which resulted in him writing a Facebook post lauding the merits of the state’s Permanent Fund as a model for a national form of basic income.

UBI, a concept that dates back centuries, is the idea that every person should receive some amount of money so that no one dips beneath a basic standard of living. For those on the left, it’s seen as an alternative to our country’s woefully limited cash welfare system. For libertarians, a basic income is lauded as a slimmer, less intrusive way to deliver government benefits. It is the rare utopian idea that people of different political stripes can agree on—Zuckerberg himself made sure to note the “bipartisan” appeal of the policy in his post.

But Zuckerberg reveals exactly why the left should be alarmed that Silicon Valley is taking the lead on this issue.

First, the idea that UBI has bipartisan appeal is disingenuous. The left would have a policy that redistributes wealth by funding UBI through a more progressive tax scheme or the diverting of capital income. But libertarians like Charles Murray argue for a UBI that completely scraps our existing welfare state, including programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and housing subsidies. This would be extremely regressive, since money currently directed towards the poor would instead be spread out for a basic income for all. And certain benefits like health insurance can’t effectively be replaced with cash.

Second, Zuckerberg asserts that Alaska’s Permanent Fund—which uses the state’s oil resources to pay a dividend to each Alaskan and is seen as one of the few examples of an actual UBI-like policy—is advantageous because it “comes from conservative principles of smaller government, rather than progressive principles of a larger safety net.” But a UBI policy can only reflect small government principles if one envisions it eating into the country’s existing welfare state, rather than coming on top of it. In this respect, Zuckerberg’s advocacy of UBI “bipartisanship” starts to look more like a veiled libertarian agenda.

This attitude echoes other pro-UBI tech lords like Altman, who sees basic income as providing a “floor” but not a ceiling. In his ideal scheme, no one will be very poor, but people like Altman will still be free to get “as rich as they fucking want.” The tech vision of the world is one where it can wash its hands of the rising joblessness it will generate through automation, but where those at the top can still wallow in extreme wealth. As Altman told Business Insider, “We need to be ready for a world with trillionaires in it, and that’s always going to feel deeply unfair. It feels unfair to me. But to drive society forward, you’ve got to let that happen.”

This is deeply telling of the tech UBI mentality: driving society forward doesn’t mean reducing inequality, but rather fostering more entrepreneurship. The former is viewed as unnecessary and the latter as an inherent good.

Zuckerberg also compares Alaska’s Permanent Fund to running a business—a very specific one:

Seeing how Alaska put this dividend in place reminded me of a lesson I learned early at Facebook: organizations think profoundly differently when they’re profitable than when they’re in debt. When you’re losing money, your mentality is largely about survival. But when you’re profitable, you’re confident about your future and you look for opportunities to invest and grow further. Alaska’s economy has historically created this winning mentality, which has led to this basic income. That may be a lesson for the rest of the country as well.

The idea that a “winning mentality” is what is going to lead to a basic income in the United States reveals how little Zuckerberg understands about politics. This is a pervasive ideology among tech leaders, who believe the lessons that they have gleaned from their own industry are applicable to all of the country’s problems. But remember the last time a disrupter said he was going to step into the political arena and run our country like a business?

For moguls like Zuckerberg, there is never any deep consideration of, say, the fact that racism, sexism, and classism are deeply intertwined with our country’s policies and are some of the biggest obstacles to implementing a highly redistributive policy like a UBI. Nor is there any attempt to consult with lifelong organizers and activists on the issue.

At the end of his post, Zuckerberg states that the “most effective safety net programs create an incentive or need to work rather than just giving a handout.” This echoes the “personal responsibility” rhetoric that drove workfare policies in the 1990s, which ended up kicking millions of people off of welfare rolls, leaving them in extreme poverty. The line also directly undermines the push for a UBI, which is quite literally a handout that can help liberate people from the “need to work.”

It would appear that Silicon Valley’s support for a basic income comes from self-interest. As Jathan Sadowski writes in the Guardian, “the trouble comes when UBI is used as a way of merely making techno-capitalism more tolerable for people, when it is administered like a painkiller that numbs the pain and masks the symptoms of economic injustice without addressing the root causes of exploitation and inequality.”

Tech moguls may seem like tempting allies for UBI advocates, but their vision of an ideal social safety net does not look anything like the left’s. If it did, they wouldn’t be pushing just for a basic income, but also for things like universal health care, free public education (not just for engineers!), and strong labor unions. For Silicon Valley, UBI is a sleek technological means to a very different end.

Statistical Fixations

Martin Feldstein is nowhere near as excitable as David Stockman on Fed manipulations (link to D.S.’s commentary), but they both end up at the same place: the enormous risks we are sowing with abnormal monetary policies. The economy is not nearly as healthy as the Fed would like, but pockets of the economy are bubbling up while other pockets are still deflating. There is a correlation relationship, probably causal.

The problem with “inflation targeting” is that bubble economics warps relative prices and so the correction must drive some prices down and others up. In other words, massive relative price corrections are called for. But inflation targeting targets the general price level as measured by biased sample statistics – so if the Fed is trying to prop up prices that previously bubbled up and need to decline, such as housing and stocks, they are pushing against a correction. The obvious problem has been these debt-driven asset prices, like stocks, government bonds, and real estate. In the meantime, we get no new investment that would increase labor demand.

The global economy needs to absorb the negative in order to spread the positive consequences of these easy central bank policies. The time is now because who knows what happens after the turmoil of the US POTUS election?

Ending the Fed’s Inflation Fixation

The focus is misplaced—and because it delays an overdue interest-rate rise, it is also dangerous.

By MARTIN FELDSTEIN
The Wall Street Journal, May 17, 2016 7:02 p.m. ET

The primary role of the Federal Reserve and other central banks should be to prevent high rates of inflation. The double-digit inflation rates of the late 1970s and early ’80s were a destructive and frightening experience that could have been avoided by better monetary policy in the previous decade. Fortunately, the Fed’s tighter monetary policy under Paul Volcker brought the inflation rate down and set the stage for a strong economic recovery during the Reagan years.

The Federal Reserve has two congressionally mandated policy goals: “full employment” and “price stability.” The current unemployment rate of 5% means that the economy is essentially at full employment, very close to the 4.8% unemployment rate that the members of the Fed’s Open Market Committee say is the lowest sustainable rate of unemployment.

For price stability, the Fed since 2012 has interpreted its mandate as a long-term inflation rate of 2%. Although it has achieved full employment, the Fed continues to maintain excessively low interest rates in order to move toward its inflation target. This has created substantial risks that could lead to another financial crisis and economic downturn.

The Fed did raise the federal-funds rate by 0.25 percentage points in December, but interest rates remain excessively low and are still driving investors and lenders to take unsound risks to reach for yield, leading to a serious mispricing of assets. The S&P 500 price-earnings ratio is more than 50% above its historic average. Commercial real estate is priced as if low bond yields will last forever. Banks and other lenders are lending to lower quality borrowers and making loans with fewer conditions.

When interest rates return to normal there will be substantial losses to investors, lenders and borrowers. The adverse impact on the overall economy could be very serious.
A fundamental problem with an explicit inflation target is the difficulty of knowing if it has been hit. The index of consumer prices that the Fed targets should in principle measure how much more it costs to buy goods and services that create the same value for consumers as the goods and services that they bought the year before. Estimating that cost would be an easy task for the national income statisticians if consumers bought the same things year after year. But the things that we buy are continually evolving, with improvements in quality and with the introduction of new goods and services. These changes imply that our dollars buy goods and services with greater value year after year.

Adjusting the price index for these changes is an impossibly difficult task. The methods used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics fail to capture the extent of quality improvements and don’t even try to capture the value created by new goods and services.

The true value of the national income is therefore rising faster than the official estimates of real gross domestic product and real incomes imply. For the same reason, the official measure of inflation overstates the increase in the true cost of the goods and services that consumers buy. If the official measure of inflation were 1%, the true cost of buying goods and services that create the same value to consumers may have actually declined. The true rate of inflation could be minus 1% or minus 3% or minus 5%. There is simply no way to know.

With a margin of error that large, it makes no sense to focus monetary policy on trying to hit a precise inflation target. The problem that consumers care about and that should be the subject of Fed policy is avoiding a return to the rapidly rising inflation that took measured inflation from less than 2% in 1965 to 5% in 1970 and to more than 12% in 1980.

Although we cannot know the true rate of inflation at any time, we can see if the measured inflation rate starts rising rapidly. If that happens, it would be a sign that true inflation is also rising because of excess demand in product and labor markets. That would be an indication that the Fed should be tightening monetary policy.

The situation today in which the official inflation rate is close to zero implies that the true inflation rate is now less than zero. Fortunately this doesn’t create the kind of deflation problem that would occur if households’ money incomes were falling. If that occurred, households would cut back on spending, leading to declines in overall demand and a possible downward spiral in prices and economic activity.

Not only are nominal wages and incomes not falling in the U.S. now, they are rising at about 2% a year. The negative true inflation rate means that true real incomes are rising more rapidly than the official statistics imply. [Sounds good, huh? Not quite. Read Stockman’s analysis.]

The Federal Reserve should now eliminate the explicit inflation target policy that it adopted less than five years ago. The Fed should instead emphasize its commitment to avoiding both high inflation and declining nominal wages. That would permit it to raise interest rates more rapidly today and to pursue a sounder monetary policy in the years ahead.

inflation-vs-employment

Share the Wealth?

The Third Way? No, the Only Way forward. It’s called peoples’ capitalism, the Ownership Society, employee ownership, inclusive capitalism, etc. (Ironic how Reich has embraced a concept introduced in national politics by George W. Bush.)
Reprinted from the Huff Post. Comment below…

The Third Way: Share-the-Gains Capitalism

by Robert Reich

Marissa Mayer tells us a lot about why Americans are so angry, and why anti-establishment fury has become the biggest single force in American politics today.

Mayer is CEO of Yahoo. Yahoo’s stock lost about a third of its value last year, as the company went from making $7.5 billion in 2014 to losing $4.4 billion in 2015. Yet Mayer raked in $36 million in compensation.

Even if Yahoo’s board fires her, her contract stipulates she gets $54.9 million in severance. The severance package was disclosed in a regulatory filing last Friday with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In other words, Mayer can’t lose.

It’s another example of no-lose socialism for the rich — winning big regardless of what you do.

Why do Yahoo’s shareholders put up with it? Mostly because they don’t know about it.

Most of their shares are held by big pension funds, mutual funds, and insurance funds whose managers don’t want to rock the boat because they skim the cream regardless of what happens to Yahoo.

In other words, more no-lose socialism for the rich.

I don’t want to pick on Ms. Mayer or the managers of the funds that invest in Yahoo. They’re typical of the no-lose system in which America’s corporate and financial elite now operate.

But the rest of America works in a different system.

Theirs is cutthroat hyper-capitalism — in which wages are shrinking, median household income continues to drop, workers are fired without warning, two-thirds are living paycheck to paycheck, and employees are being classified as “independent contractors” without any labor protections at all.

Why is there no-lose socialism for the rich and cutthroat hyper-capitalism for everyone else?

Because the rules of the game — including labor laws, pension laws, corporate laws, and tax laws — have been crafted by those at the top, and the lawyers and lobbyists who work for them.

Does that mean we have to await Bernie Sanders’s “political revolution” (or, perish the thought, Donald Trump’s authoritarian populism) before any of this is likely to change?

Before we go to the barricades, you should know about another CEO named Hamdi Ulukaya, who’s developing a third model — neither no-lose socialism for the rich nor hyper-capitalism for everyone else.

Ulukaya is the Turkish-born founder and CEO of Chobani, the upstart Greek yogurt maker recently valued at as much as $5 billion.

Last Tuesday Ulukaya announced he’s giving all his 2,000 full-time workers shares of stock worth up to 10 percent of the privately held company’s value when it’s sold or goes public, based on each employee’s tenure and role at the company.

If the company ends up being valued at $3 billion, for example, the average employee payout could be $150,000. Some long-tenured employees will get more than $1 million.

Ulukaya’s announcement raised eyebrows all over corporate America. Many are viewing it as an act of charity (Forbes Magazine calls it one of “the most selfless corporate acts of the year”).

In reality, Mr. Ulukaya’s decision is just good business. Employees who are partners become even more dedicated to increasing a company’s value.

Which is why research shows that employee-owned companies — even those with workers holding only a minority stake — tend to out-perform the competition.

Mr. Ulukaya just increased the odds that Chobani will be valued at more than $5 billion when it’s sold or its shares of stock are available to the public. Which will make him, as well as his employees, far wealthier.

As Ulukaya wrote to his workers, the award isn’t a gift but “a mutual promise to work together with a shared purpose and responsibility.”

A handful of other companies are inching their way in a similar direction.

Apple decided last October it would award shares not just to executives or engineers but to hourly paid workers as well. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey is giving a third of his Twitter stock (about 1 percent of the company) “to our employee equity pool to reinvest directly in our people.“

Employee stock ownership plans, which have been around for years, are lately seeing a bit of a comeback.

But the vast majority of American companies are still locked in the old hyper-capitalist model that views workers as costs to be cut rather than as partners to share in success.

That’s largely because Wall Street still looks unfavorably on such collaboration (remember, Chobani is still privately held).

The Street remains obsessed with short-term stock performance, and its analysts don’t believe hourly workers have much to contribute to the bottom line.

But they’re prepared to lavish unprecedented rewards on CEOs who don’t deserve squat.

Let them compare Yahoo with Chobani in a few years, and see which model works best.

If I were a betting man, I’d put my money on Greek yoghurt.

And I’d bet on a model of capitalism that’s neither no-lose socialism for the rich nor cruel hyper-capitalism for the rest, but share-the-gains capitalism for everyone.

 ——————
My comment:
Reich’s argument for inclusive “ownership” capital is certainly a welcome improvement over artificially raising labor costs through wage mandates or union restrictions. Kudos to Mr. Ulukaya, but a more widely adopted model can’t rely solely on enlightened capitalists. Mr. Reich glosses over the important issue of who bears the risks of capitalist enterprise before success. Sharing the gains unfortunately also means sharing the financial risks, or the direct relationship between human loss aversion and risk-taking enterprise collapses. In other words, nobody gets to receive gains without taking risks and nobody take risks without expected gains. If that truth escapes you, you’re probably not a casino gambler.
Mr. Ulukaya bore these risks and now wisely seeks to share the risks and rewards going forward. But these ownership rights should be negotiated by employees across the economy and can’t rely on the benevolence of successful entrepreneurs. Labor organizations could play a collective action role here on securing and enforcing ownership rights. The public sector also should address how economic risks can be better managed through a functioning private insurance market complemented by social insurance where private markets are incomplete.
The current desire to centralize risk and control in big government, big business, and big labor is sorely misguided and it would be helpful if both left and right could come together on that fact. Ideology be damned.
———-
I include this cartoon below for its comic irony. So many people reading this article mistake Reich’s argument for Bernie Sanders-style socialism when it is the exact opposite. It’s about extending capital ownership to labor, whereas socialism is about abolishing capital ownership in favor of some altruistic notion of communalism.
share-the-candy

What Is Inclusive Capitalism?

We can distill “inclusive capitalism” down to a single word that captures the concept in its fullest dimensions. That word is EQUITY.

There is a movement afoot called The Coalition for Inclusive Capitalism that counts Prince Charles, Pope Francis, Bill Clinton, and the world’s richest industrialist Carlos Slim among its supporters. Our first reaction to this news might be to ask, “What exactly is meant by the term Inclusive Capitalism?”

The Coalition provides this definition:

“Inclusive Capitalism provides that firms should account for themselves, not just on the bottom line, but on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics… Every firm has a license to operate from the society in which it trades. This is both a legally and socially defined license… Firms must contribute proportionately to the societies in which they operate. Without fairly contributing, firms free-ride on services that other people have paid for. Firms that practice unsustainable activities, disrespect their stakeholders and the communities in which they operate will find their licenses threatened, first by the engaged consumer, then by government. Firms practicing Inclusive Capitalism will see their license strengthened.”

While laudable in its aspirations, operationalizing this value-laden definition poses a few questions and challenges.

First, this definition focuses on firm responsibility according to ESG sustainability metrics and firm performance. In fact, citing studies of corporate performance measures, the IC literature asserts that such practices deliver superior firm performance in terms of profit and market valuations. If true, then market competition should insure the widespread adoption of best practices with the gradual attrition of less profitable, less sustainable firm behavior. In other words, markets should provide sufficient correctives. If they do not, we probably need to question such assumptions that the market is functioning as expected, that it is complete, or that best practices across firms and industries are readily transparent.

Second, one can inadvertently blur the operational differences between public corporations and non-corporate, small business where ESG metrics are more difficult to discern or measure. Since much of capitalism’s innovation, job creation, and business expansion occurs at the small business level, we need to expand the idea of inclusion beyond corporate management practices and stakeholder governance.

Third, the search for an acceptable definition can also put different class segments of society at odds. The British Guardian has already described the Coalition’s efforts as a “Trojan Horse” cynically deployed to placate the public so that crony capitalism can thrive unscathed. Our definition then must not only articulate a vision and a direction, but also gain acceptance and buy-in from all segments of society. In other words, our definition must be “inclusive” in order to mediate conflicts among groups that appear to harbor diverging interests.

Finally, when we probe practitioners we find that different people have different ideas of what Inclusive Capitalism means, so we still lack a consistent and concise definition. Perhaps we can start by eliminating what it is not. It’s more than just corporate social responsibility (CSR) or ESG sustainability. It’s not defined by charity, philanthropy, or noblesse oblige. It’s more than “people-centered” and not really Robin Hood-style tax and redistribution, or even social welfare.

This is not to declaim or disparage these policies and activities, which in many cases yield positive social and economic results. The problem is that these policies are not really designed to be inclusive; rather they target compensation for past exclusion. In contrast, we should understand that inclusive capitalism seeks to reduce the need for such compensation. Thus, the motivating criterion is bottom-up empowerment, not top-down redirection. For example, inclusive capitalism is less about artificially raising wages, and more about creating the demand for and utilization of labor where a minimum or living wage becomes a moot issue.

With this objective, I believe we can distill “inclusive capitalism” down to a single word that captures the concept in its fullest dimensions. That word is EQUITY. Why equity? Because the multiple meanings and usage of the word “equity” expand the idea into every realm of a free society: political equity in terms of democratic participation, legal equity in terms of rights and accountability, moral equity in terms of justice, and economic equity in terms of capital ownership structures, control, risk, and reward. A free society that lacks any one of these dimensions of equity is in need of repair.

Economic Equity

Naturally, the focus of the term “inclusive capitalism” applies primarily to economic equity, begging the next question of how we define and understand economic equity. This can be problematic because a moral precept of equity as “fairness” is not definitive. In other words, What is economically fair? is a question that cannot really be answered objectively. In economic relations, equity implies a linkage between action and consequence; in finance we might refer to the direct link between risk and reward. In fact, the financial framework may offer the clearest insight into the logic of economic equity in capitalism.

Economic growth is a result of successful risk-taking and productive work. The rewards of success are, or should be, distributed accordingly. The simplest formulation asserts that capital takes the risks and labor does the work. The distributional outcomes of success or failure are then perceived as a protracted conflict between capital and labor over issues of equity. I would argue this conflict is misconstrued.

The linkage between risk and reward is inter-temporal. In other words, financial risks are assigned and taken before the enterprise is engaged: capital is borrowed and invested, suppliers are paid, and labor is contracted. The payment contracts reflect a complex web of legal relations and covenants that stipulate the assignment of liabilities and the seniority of claims over the product after it has been produced and, hopefully, sold. The liability risks of all participants are encoded in these contracts. After standard accounting practices measure the results, the returns to success or the losses of failure are distributed accordingly.

In starkest terms: In capitalism, she who takes the risk, gets the reward (or the loss). We can see the importance of residual claimancy over the profits of the enterprise. Under most corporate legal covenants, these profits accrue to “equity holders,” also referred to as shareholders or owners of firm assets. We should note the usage of that word “equity.”

Inclusive capitalism warrants “inclusion” in the profit-making enterprise of capitalism, which by legal necessity requires contractual claims on residual profits as well as the assumption of liabilities for loss. To control the financial risks associated with these liabilities, the corporate charter was deliberately designed to limit liability to the liquidation value of the firm’s assets.

Some correctly make the argument that wider stakeholders in capitalism (those without ownership claims) have rights that should be reflected in the governance of capitalist enterprise. An example might be a community downriver that suffers water contamination from a producer upstream. Economic externalities, such as environmental degradation, are important considerations for inclusion. Politically imposed regulation can be one means of asserting stakeholders’ interests, but the preferred strategy would be to assign stakeholder claims through the accepted legal structures of ownership and control. In other words, stakeholders should be represented as the voice of shareholders participating as owners in capitalist enterprise. In this way, stakeholders assert their interests and can also claim the material benefits of success, i.e., profits.

Thus, inclusive capitalism explicitly requires inclusion in the economic system as “capitalists,” as well as workers. This all can be as simple as being a passive shareholder. This begs the penultimate question of why, in a capitalist economy, we are not all striving to be capitalists? Alternatively, we might ask: Why is economic inclusion so elusive?

I believe this is where the discussion of inclusive capitalism gets interesting. The answers hinge on the risk-taking nature of capitalist enterprise juxtaposed against the risk-averse, loss-averse behavior dictated by our natural survival instinct. There is a selective bias among successful capitalists to perceive a natural order of things whereby some people are natural risk-taking innovators, while others are not. For them, this “natural order” explains the distribution of success in a capitalist society. The elitist bias can reveal itself in attitudes of paternalism and noblesse oblige.

This perspective is largely the product of a theoretical approach to the market economy where participants are grouped by function: producers vs. consumers; employers vs. workers; investors and borrowers vs. savers and lenders; innovators and wealth-creators vs. welfare dependents. When it comes to distributional outcomes, this is a limited analytical paradigm. Let us just consider the risk-takers. Innovators like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, or Google’s Page and Brin are perhaps one in a million. But each of these immensely successful individuals has been eager to share the risks and returns of their enterprise through the sale of equity in financial markets. The important lesson is not the fact that Gates may have a net worth of more than $30 billion, but that Microsoft (and Apple and Amazon) has enriched thousands of other stakeholders along the way. This is the key to inclusion and we should pay mind to how it is narrowing.

Though risk preferences and animal spirits do vary across the population, economic risk is ubiquitous and borne in some manner by all. As the capitalist risks loss of principal, the worker risks loss of income. The real question is whether the risk-bearers are receiving just compensation commensurate with those risks and whether the risk-takers are also accountable for losses. This is equity in the moral and economic sense of the word. A free society demands that the innocent not pay for the mistakes of the guilty and this applies in capitalist enterprise as well. (Our recent financial bail-outs appear to have violated this moral imperative.)

For inclusion to work, participants in capitalist enterprise must also be empowered to control and manage their risks. Inclusion and participation then becomes a question of enforceable property rights and gets us back to the legal conventions of assigning ownership rights and risks to tangible assets of the firm. In many situations, different stakeholders eschew the risks because they cannot control or manage them, so they pay to have someone else assume them (i.e., sign a labor contract for a lower risk-return profile). Overcoming these impediments to equity participation inherent to the governance issue is the main challenge of inclusion.

Unfortunately, we have many tax and regulatory policies, as well as financial practices and conventions, that contradict the goal of inclusion through equity. Access to credit, debt leverage, collateral requirements, capital and income taxes, conflicts of interest in governance, etc. work to the disadvantage of those who are thereby excluded from the financialization of the economy. A long laundry list of reforms can be offered in this respect, but that is beyond the purview of this effort, which is to first define what we mean by inclusive capitalism.

A more serious challenge is posed by an industrial global economy being transformed by the digital information age, globalization, and AI robotics. Production in the digital age is revealing itself as labor-saving, capital and skill intensive, with winner-take-all product and service markets. Some of the effects we observe are the rise of celebrity branding; the marginalization of wage labor as a distributional mechanism and mode of inclusion; and the explosive growth of wealth concentration enjoyed by those who feed off digital processes—companies like Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook. These trends present a dire challenge to the concept of equity and inclusion. It is a challenge that will require far deeper thinking and rethinking of the 21st century economy and how we conceive of a free society. Despite what politicians may promise, I would advise there is no going back.

House of Cards: Truth Stranger Than Fiction

As a political economist and policy analyst I have to say I’ve found the NetFlix series, House of Cards very entertaining. Of course, it is over the top with political sleaze and corruption, something that probably syncs well with the public’s impression of Washington politics these days. (I find it interesting that the writers chose to designate the depraved, murderous POTUS Frank Underwood, played by Kevin Spacey, as a big “D” Democrat. With an annoyingly ambitious, self-righteous wife as co-president – sound familiar? Apparently, depravity with good intentions is somewhat acceptable these days in partisan circles, with Underwood often turning to the audience to explain the bare facts of Machiavellian realpolitik. How unfortunate for poor Niccolo, who was a true republican patriot, but recast by history as the apologist for a ruthless, depraved Prince.)

I have been most amused by Season 3, where Pres. Underwood proposes a massive jobs program paid for by slashing entitlements. This is just too juicy to let pass unnoticed. Let’s translate this “promise” of a full employment Nirvana: “I’m going to take your hard earned money we extorted through Social Security and Medicare taxes and give it away to companies that will employ workers for jobs that the productive private economy will not create because they lose money. Isn’t that grand? We’ll all feel better about humanity, even though we’ll be poorer for it (all except me, that is).”

The irony is that this absurd fiction is actually proposed too often as serious politics in the real Washington D.C. Quite a few other bloggers have explained the surrealness of a POTUS creating jobs from whole cloth just because he can command it from the White House. The numbers just don’t add up. But I was struck more by the widely accepted premise that asserts “jobs” as the end-all of what ails a society of free citizens. The Underwood character actually says, “People are dying from unemployment!” This cuts pretty close to home with Obama recently claiming that “chanting ‘Death to America’ does not create jobs.” Really? Is that what they’re beheading innocents over, a few good jobs?

People don’t die from unemployment, they die from poverty, deprivation, and disease. They die from oppression and violence. Unproductive jobs subsidized by governments do not alleviate poverty, they merely spread poverty around. The thing is, politicians focus on jobs because that is the only way they know how to spread the benefits of capitalism around the population. But we are moving into a new age that departs from the skilled labor-intensive manufacturing of the post-WWII years. Our financial policies have accelerated this trend away from labor by providing cheap capital to take advantage of cheaper labor overseas or machine/robot substitution. We are entering the information, artificial intelligence, and robotics age, and yet our politicians are still making false promises of a job and two chickens in every pot. Not going to happen. We need to think outside that box to discover how we are going to create and share wealth in the new economy. There are many alternative ways to participate in a market economy than solely as a labor input.

In the meantime, enjoy the entertainment. It’s hilarious. But don’t expect a job from America Works.

Beyond Piketty’s Capital

Income-USA-1910-2010

What Ben Franklin and Billie Holiday Could Tell Us About Capitalism’s Inequalities

It has now been two years since French economist Thomas Piketty published his tome, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, and one year since it was published in English, raising a fanfare of praise and criticism. It has deserved both, most notably for “putting the distributional question back at the heart of economic analysis.”[1] I would imagine Professor Piketty is also pleased by the attention his work has garnered: What economist doesn’t secretly desire to be labeled a “rock-star” without having to sing or pick up a guitar to demonstrate otherwise?

Piketty’s study (a collaborative effort, to be sure) is an important and timely contribution to economic research. His datasets across time and space on wealth, income, and inheritances provide a wealth of empirical evidence for future testing and analysis. The presentation is long, as it is all-encompassing, tackling an ambitious, if not impossible, task. But for empirics alone, the work is commendable.

Many critics have focused on methodology and the occasional data error, but I will dispense with that by accepting the general contour of history Piketty presents as accurate of real trends in economic inequality over time. And that it matters. Inequality is not only a social and political problem, it is an economic challenge because extreme disparities break down the basis of free exchange, leading to excess investment lacking productive opportunities.[2] (Piketty ignores the natural equilibrium correctives of business/trade cycles, presumably because he perceives them as interim reversals on an inevitable long term trend.) I have followed Edward Wolff’s research long enough to know there is an intimate causal relationship between capitalist markets and material outcomes. I believe the meatier controversy is found in Piketty’s interpretations of the data and his inductive theorizing because that tells us what we can and should do, if anything, about it. Sufficient time has passed for us to digest the criticisms and perhaps offer new insights.

Read the full essay, formatted and downloadable as a pdf…

———————–

[1] Distributional issues are really at the heart of our most intractable policy challenges. Not only are wealth and income inequalities distributional puzzles, so are hunger, poverty, pollution, the effects of climate change, etc. Unfortunately, the profession tends to ignore distributional puzzles because the necessary assumptions of high-order mathematical models that drive theory rule out dynamic network interactions that characterize markets. Due to these limitations, economics is left with the default explanations of initial conditions, hence the focus on natural inequality, access to education, inheritance, etc. General equilibrium theory (GE) also assumes distributional effects away: over time prices and quantities will adjust to correct any maldistributions caused by misallocated resources. For someone mired in poverty or hunger, it’s not a very inspiring assumption.

[2] As opposed to distributional problems, modern economics is very comfortable studying and prescribing economic growth. Its mathematical models provide powerful tools to study and explain the determinants of growth. This is why growth is often touted as the solution to every economic problem. (When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail.) But sustainable growth relies on the feedback cycle within a dynamic market network model, so stable growth is highly dependent on sustainable distributional networks.

Rethinking Inequality and Redistribution in a Free Society

taxtherich

Inequality has become a hot political topic these days and may be most contentious issue of the 2016 presidential election (unless a geopolitical crisis occurs before then). The study of economic inequality and what to do about it has a long history though, and not much has changed.

In this post I would like to suggest some different ways of looking at the problem and what to do about it from a policy perspective. Many people look at the distributional outcomes of success in a winner-take-all society and declaim the results as unfair. It probably is unfair, just like it is when all the tallest kids get chosen to play on the basketball team. But, more seriously, fairness is not an objective measure by which we can set policy.

Most people think they can define what’s fair and what’s not. I would tend to agree, but mine probably departs from the common sense definition. When looking at results in life, one person’s fairness (the winners’ bracket) is another’s unfairness (the losers’ bracket). So, should fairness be determined by who has the most political power and influence in society, even if that is a tyranny of the majority? I fail to see how that would be fair.

Fairness can actually be defined by the legal idea that consequence should follow action. In other words, the guilty, not the innocent, should pay for their sins. In finance, this idea of fairness is couched in the concept of risk and reward: he who takes the risk, reaps the reward (or the loss).

The question is how do we apply this objective idea of fairness (I would prefer the word “justice”) to policies to mitigate unequal outcomes? Or even should we?

I will argue that we should, but that we’re devising all the wrong policies because we are trapped in a conceptual maze. Economic inequality is truly a maze of confusion. There are many different factors that lead to unequal results and it’s quite easy and common to focus on the wrong ones. The factors that have become politically salient today are related to the diverging returns between capital and labor. This is at the root of all the hullabaloo over French economist Thomas Piketty’s work, a work that has been politicized to confirm the worse fears of labor advocates.

In short, globalization and technology has led to wage repression for the 99%, while increasing the returns to capital (the 1%). The keen-jerk solution is to tax capital after the fact and redistribute the funds to labor. The POTUS stated this proposal explicitly in his recent SOTU address: “Let’s close the loopholes that lead to inequality by allowing the top 1 percent to avoid paying taxes on their accumulated wealth.” In effect, he was advocating for tax reform, but he failed to specify details. But we have a good idea on what kind of economic policies Mr. Obama favors: free community college tuition, minimum wage laws, family childcare and education credits, paid sick leave. One can argue the pros and cons of these policies, but none of them really addresses the growing problem of inequality. My guess is that is because the administration really doesn’t have any new ideas about what to do about inequality except to wave it as a red flag during election season.

There is a serious problem with trying to tax capital to redistribute to labor that I would like to present here in the simplest of terms. Capital has dominant strategies to win any conflict with labor in a free society. If we tax capital, it can instantly move elsewhere to avoid the tax. Financial capital is fungible, it can change it’s use. Or it can lie dormant in the bank vault or a mattress. Labor enjoys none of these advantages: we can’t easily get up and move, we are specialized by skills and education, and we can’t be idle for long because we have to eat. In a class war between capital and labor, labor must capitulate, at least in a free society.

The political measures that seek to prevent this – such as repatriation laws, tax penalties, capital controls, crackdowns on tax havens and accounting rules – are largely ineffective because capital enjoys these freedoms that are partly incumbent to its nature. Eliminating capital mobility would require the complete coordination of the international community, which implies state control over the deployment of capital. This would be contradictory to a free society, as much as the complete state control of labor mobility would. In other words, state coercion is incompatible with a free society and thus any tax costs will fall mostly on labor. This is not the result we want.

So, are we stuck in an impossible situation where those who own and control capital dominate those who don’t? I don’t believe so, but the solutions lie outside the present constellation of policies.

The first lesson is that if capital dominates the distribution of returns, then success in capitalism requires access, ownership, and control of capital.  Simply put, in a capitalist society, why aren’t we all clamoring to become capitalists? (You don’t have to run a business to be a capitalist, you just need to buy into public corporate share ownership and control.)

The next objection is that capital ownership and control cannot be pried from the hands of the rich and powerful without coercion by a democratically-elected government. In other words, we’re back to tax coercion. It is certainly true that we can tax physical capital and wealth through property and estate taxes. A mansion cannot be moved or disappear because it is taxed and the tax cannot be avoided by selling the property since the sales price will instantly reflect the tax liability. Wealth taxes are probably necessary due to the massive transfer of wealth under the misguided policies of the past two decades, but we’re missing the larger point if we focus solely on this redistribution of wealth after the fact. (My proposal for estate taxes is that they could be avoided entirely if the estate distributed the capital in limited amounts voluntarily according to the wishes of the principal. This happens to a certain extent with charitable gifts, but I would broaden the idea to cover any beneficiaries.)

However, beyond wealth taxes, there IS a way to incentivize someone to surrender at least some of their capital voluntarily. In fact, we all do it all the time when we buy insurance. By paying insurance premiums we surrender capital wealth in order to reduce risk and preserve the remainder. The rich have long practiced capital preservation strategies to protect their wealth. So risk is exchanged with capital.

This is also how Wall Street bankers get rich – they assume risk, manage it successfully, and then reap the rewards. So, if those without capital assume the equity risks going forward, and their property rights are vigorously defended, they can reap the rewards of economic success through their labor and their capital accumulation. The rich willingly give up some of their control in return for reducing their risks. As a society we can redistribute wealth by redistributing and managing risk.

This happens now when we save and invest in new business ventures, or accumulate a portfolio of financial assets such as stocks and bonds. But to really make a dent in inequality we must broaden and deepen capital ownership with a range of policy reforms that consistently reward working, saving, investing, accumulating capital, and diversifying risk. In a free society the government was never meant to do all of this for us, especially when we can do it better ourselves. I also would not expect most politicians in Washington to someday wake up and discover these reforms by themselves.

 

 

 

 

Why Ownership Matters

TheOwnershipSociety

A little over a decade ago, in 2004 to be exact, the subject of ownership in democratic capitalist society was raised as a national political issue. Attribution goes to President George W. Bush, as he was campaigning for a second term, when he stated, “…if you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of our country. The more ownership there is in America, the more vitality there is in America, and the more people have a vital stake in the future of this country.” He called his vision The Ownership Society and it became the theme of his campaign. Naturally, his political opponents pounced on the idea, deriding it as the You’re-On-Your-Own Society, with the catchy acronym of “YO-YO.”

At the time I found the original statement to be more profound than was probably intended by its conservative proponents. My doubts were confirmed when the focus soon narrowed to the Holy Grail of residential home ownership, which was experiencing a boom due to policies favored by both parties that powered a historic bubble based on cheap credit and lowered lending standards. In the final capitulation to politics, the ownership agenda was reduced to, and attacked as, a naked partisan strategy to privatize entitlements, primarily to carve away support for liberal Democratic proponents of the social welfare state.

However, I don’t see ownership as a partisan issue, or even an ideological one, despite the fact that our political class certainly does. Instead, I see it as a theoretical and empirical issue that goes far beyond policy or politics to encompass economics, psychology, moral philosophy, and evolution.

For reasons that will become apparent, I will define this discussion to the ownership of financial capital. The ownership and control of capital assets is essential in the age of capital for two main reasons: first, it enables people to diversify against the risks of change; and two, the establishment of ownership rights is how the market and our legal system determine the distribution of returns to those aforementioned risks. Thus, ownership rights serve to determine the distribution of both a priori risks of, and a posteriori returns to, uncertain change.

Managing Risk

The best way to illustrate these two assertions is with the analogy of a roulette game. Imagine that several players with equal stakes gather around the roulette table. They wager their ownership stakes according to different risk preferences, some playing single numbers (highly risky) down to those who play black or red, odd or even (less risky). After each turn of the wheel the winners receive pay-offs or absorb losses in proportion to the odds ratios, or risks, of their strategies. In other words, if one played a single number or a row of numbers that hit while another played a red or black, the first would receive a much larger pay-off because she would have taken a much higher risk of loss. What we see if we examine the odds ratios of all the different plays on the roulette table is that the risk-adjusted rates of return of all strategies are essentially equal (and favor the casino ever so slightly). If the return/risk ratios are all the same, the only way to increase one’s return is to increase one’s risks and manage them successfully. This risk-return trade-off is the foundation of finance theory.

Behavioral studies show that we are uniformly loss averse. Since we cannot know the future, uncertainty and the risk of loss is inherent to our existence (although every tomorrow also offers hope for new opportunities). The best way to insure against losses due to unpredictable risks is through diversified pooling. We do this when we buy auto or homeowners insurance. These insurance pools are in fact diversified portfolios of capital assets. Likewise, ‘saving for a rainy day’ is a form of self-insurance. Due to the asymmetric information of insurance, certain problems arise that we call moral hazard and adverse selection. Moral hazard is when the beneficiary of the insurance changes risk-taking behavior because they are insured. This is like someone who drives recklessly because they have insurance to cover the cost of an accident. However, if the insurance issuer knew the person was going to change their risk behavior it would demand higher premiums. Adverse selection is when good risks opt out of an insurance pool with bad risks, causing the risk pool to become more risky and require ever higher premiums until the pool breaks down. Because we know our own risk-taking behavior better than anyone else, both of these insurance problems result from asymmetric information.

We can see that self-insurance doesn’t not suffer from asymmetric information because we are essentially insuring ourselves, so the incentive to drive recklessly is irrational. For this reason, self-insurance incurs no agency costs and is by far more efficient than insurance pooling. But to self-insure, i.e. save for a rainy day, we must accumulate assets to diversify in a portfolio. Thus, asset ownership is essential.

A second analogy—the scientific principle of natural selection and species adaptation—reinforces the importance of risk diversification. Nature constantly adapts to unpredictable change and the imperatives for survival by promoting diversification. Biodiversity is nature’s way of achieving a sustainable ecological balance and we can imagine human societies are certainly subject to the same survival imperatives.

Sharing the Rewards

If we not only want to protect ourselves from unpredictable risks of loss but also want to share in the returns to capitalist success, we must accumulate capital assets through ownership, put them at risk, and manage those risks successfully. Establishing the policies and complementary institutions, both private and public, to facilitate this process is actually the primary policy challenge of a free democratic society. In this sense, George Bush and his critics were both right: One must take an ownership stake in America to reap her benefits, and in so doing, one assumes the risk of loss and the obligation to manage that risk successfully.

Critics of this view might ask why capitalist profits are not more justly distributed through the payment of input costs, such as labor. The problem is exactly that: labor is an input cost that must be minimized under the profit incentive in order for the enterprise to succeed in a competitive environment. With access to a world supply of labor, the dynamics of capitalism exert constant downward pressure on wages. Laborists have long sought to use countervailing political power to constrain capital, but this strategy conflicts with the globalization of free trade among sovereign nations. In an open global economy with mobile capital and immobile labor, capital has strategic dominance over labor in simple game theoretic terms. Capital can move instantaneously, withdraw, or lie dormant indefinitely.

Labor’s argument is also undermined by the fact that if workers take no explicit residual risk in the enterprise, they have no defensible ownership claim to a share in the residual profits of success. Fixed labor contracts, in effect, assign risk and thus profits to owners in return for lower, and, hopefully, more secure and stable compensation. But under fixed labor contracts, firm losses are largely, and unjustly, borne by the unemployed, who are not fairly compensated for these hidden risks in good times.

For these reasons, I believe it is a misguided political strategy to pit labor against capital in an adversarial relationship. The solution is for labor to participate in capitalist enterprise as owners as well as workers. Risk then is more broadly shared across all stakeholders rather than borne by the weakest members of the labor force.

Equally important is the policy demand to share the returns of capitalism more broadly. There has been growing public criticism of market capitalism due to cronyism and widening economic inequality. A quick analysis of the distribution of wealth and income will confirm that much of this inequality can be attributed to the benefits accruing to those who own and control financial capital. Corporate elites get rich off stock options as part of their compensation packages. Employees of successful tech start-ups become fabulously wealthy due to their equity participation, not salaries. More important, financial markets concentrate the rewards to success, especially through the use of debt leverage. Federal Reserve financial repression that keeps interest rates near zero has rewarded borrowers and asset holders while penalizing savers and workers. Enhancing labor skills through education can only mitigate these trends to a point. In capitalism today, it is essential to own and control financial capital.

Financing Adaptation and Innovation

The analogy to nature’s biodiversity suggested above is more consequential than may appear. Diversification helps species survive, but it does this by enhancing the ability to adapt successfully. Natural adaptation is synonymous with human discovery and innovation. There is a branch of social psychology that focuses on the science of human creativity and innovation and draws from the lessons of natural adaptation. In a seminal article in 1960, the psychologist Donald Campbell argued that creative thought depends on a two-fold procedure he called blind variation and selective retention (BVSR). Blind variation refers to undirected change, much like unpredictable mutation in genetics. Selective retention refers to the replication of successful change. His argument suggests that creative innovation frequently relies on novelty and surprise, as well as utility.

What does this mean in the context of technological innovation and discovery? It means that many creative discoveries in the sciences and the humanities result from unintended consequences and not deliberate, intentional efforts. In other words, discoveries often come out of the blue; creativity is magical in that it cannot be so much cajoled by deliberate effort as just being allowed to happen under the right conditions. A creative artist knows this well from experience. This research has implications for how we can stimulate economic innovation by sowing the seeds of risk-taking capital far and wide in order to reap the benefits of creativity and discovery. It also suggests the limits of directed risk-taking through the public sector or through the bottlenecks of private venture capital. The next new big thing (or just very successful small thing) is more likely to come out of a garage or kitchen and not be financed by either the state or the financial sector. More likely it will be financed by personal relationships referred to as angel financing. Broadening the accumulation and ownership of financial capital helps to broaden the reach of angel investment to fund unorthodox risk-taking.

Agency

There is an ubiquitous weakness inherent to economic systems of specialization and exchange, alluded to above in the insurance case, that is referred to as the “agency problem.” When a principal hires an agent, such as a sales agent or a manager, there is always a potential conflict of interest between the principal and the agent, which can end up being quite costly to the principal. This agency problem was recognized by Adam Smith and more recently by those who study industrial organization and the public corporation. Managers often have material interests that diverge from the principal owners, i.e., shareholders and other stakeholders of the corporation.

This agency problem can never be perfectly eliminated (except through small sole proprietorships), but economic efficiency demands that the costs be minimized by aligning the interests of all stakeholders. This has been at the root of the use of stock options and profit participation in compensation. It’s called having “skin in the game, ” but too frequently the game is played with somebody else’s skin. The abuse of stock options merely points out the pitfalls of misunderstanding the nature of ownership and control. Equity financed with other peoples’ money is not a good way to eliminate conflicts of interest and minimize risk behavior. A recent article in The Economist points to the relative success of family-owned private firms that minimize agency costs. But for the large corporation to grow through needed access to outside capital, minimizing agency costs requires transparency and close monitoring of owners’ interests. This will require the checks and balances of competing agents, such as an independent board that represents various stakeholders’ interests to management. I would suggest that this offers a positive role for organized labor—to represent their worker/shareholders so that their interests align with public shareholders in ownership and control.

Property Rights, Morality, and the Law

Because English common law was established to protect property, ownership is the linchpin of our contracts legal system: we assign losses or gains in transactions according to the legal ownership of tangible assets. We even have a maxim that says, “ownership is nine-tenths of the law.” The relevant principle is equity, in every meaningful legal, moral, and accounting sense of the word. The moral implication of the finance law of risk and reward should be apparent: those who bear the equity risk of the enterprise assume the losses of failure or reap the gains of success. The importance of equity claims can also be illustrated through accounting principles: on the income statement, input costs such as labor reduce profits that accrue to equity; on the balance sheet, labor contracts are a liability that reduce residual equity of the firm. A labor union that seeks excessive wage rents by controlling the supply of labor is actually using politics to exploit rents from the owners of capital. But if workers participate in equity, they merely shift claims from the cost to the profit side of the income statement and from the liability to the asset side of the balance sheet, all the while aligning their interests with the overall success of the enterprise. As implied, with their own “skin in the game,” they also share more of the risk.

Lastly, the legal statutes for business equity are consistent with the criminal code that states that the innocent shall not pay for the crimes of the guilty. In this light we can see that political cronyism that privatizes gains but shifts losses to taxpayers is not only an abrogation of ownership rights, it is a violation of the moral spirit of the law.

In summation, I have argued that capitalist ownership matters for the following reasons:
1. Accumulation of capital assets for self-insurance, minimizing risk through asset diversification, and reducing the need for after-tax entitlement transfers;
2. Sharing the benefits of capitalist success by broadening participation in the market economy. These benefits feed back into future consumption and investment demand while reducing the inequality generated by finance;
3. Broadening the sources of finance capital, helping to fund adaptation and innovation;
4. Reducing agency costs by aligning interests of stakeholders in capitalist risk-taking enterprise;
5. Reaffirming the moral and legal basis of equity and the law of risk and return through transparency and accountability.

These five reasons illustrate why ownership and control is an essential component of a free society. The ultimate challenge to an organic entity, whether a species or a civilization, is to adapt successfully to constant change. In economic terms, we need to harness the forces of change and adaptation for the long-run sustainability of the economy and security of society. There certainly are other social systems that attempt the same by eschewing private ownership and imposing top-down control, such as authoritarianism, national socialism or fascism, and communism. But none of these systems are able to assert the primacy of individual freedom and security that we hold inextricably entwined. To empower ownership is to advance freedom, to facilitate risk management under uncertainty, to spur adaptation and innovation, to affirm equity and justice, and ultimately, to foster peace and prosperity.

On the other hand, without ownership, we get feudalism:

feudalism-1percent

The Machines Are Coming

This is a long, but interesting repost from Nouriel Roubini’s blog. I’m posting it here because it raises a number of important issues that transcend our temporal politics and economic policies.

In particular is the section on the subject of work and labor in the machine world (Work in the Machine Age: Humans Need Not Apply?). Machines have long replaced human labor, from plows to car assembly lines to bank clerks and supermarket checkers. This presents a real problem for the labor-centered political paradigm we’ve been operating under since the beginning of the industrial age. Until recently, the wages of work is how the product of capitalism has been widely distributed to the population. When workers are no longer needed, production of the machines continues, but there is no distribution mechanism of the product except through government tax and transfer mechanisms. We already know how limited that policy is because it was tried for 75 years in the USSR and we know what happened with that experiment.

The important question in a world where capital is replacing labor as the means of production is: who gets to own the machines? Will it be multinational corporations? If so, the distribution of profits will be concentrated even more in those corporations. But corporations actually are people (despite what Citizen United objectors claim); take away the people and a corporation is nothing more than a legal charter on so many pieces of paper. The corporate agency problem revolves around who owns the corporate assets (the shareholders) and more important, who controls those assets (usually management).

If machines are replacing labor, the costs of production become embodied in the price of the machines and whoever controls that physical capital. As labor has been minimized, only the owner-shareholders and management remain to divvy up the returns to investment in those machines. So, if we’re not on the receiving end of those payouts, we’re basically out of the capitalist wealth-creating production equation. Not a good place to find oneself.

There is a recourse for labor in this picture, which is to quickly buy some equity in those machines and then defend its ownership interests in concert with other shareholders. The new paradigm is about ownership of productive assets and control of those assets through corporate governance. We had better adjust to this new reality before the cookie jar is empty. The machines won’t wait.

‘Make No Mistake: The Machines Are Coming’

by Nouriel Roubini

Last Friday night, I attended the Bloomberg BusinessWeek 85th Anniversary Dinner. The party was held at the American Museum of Natural History, where Seth Meyers, the former Saturday Night Live star, hosted the evening beneath a massive, life-sized replica of a blue whale.

The party was packed with the usual collection of highly polished New York media and business types. (The entertainment highlight of the night for me was a charming duet by Lady Gaga and Tony Bennett.)

It was a great honor to be asked by Bloomberg and BusinessWeek to give an official toast during the event, along with my fellow toastmasters Henry Kissinger, Henry Kravis, and Melody Hobson. For my toast, I was asked to select the innovation that I thought created the most disruptive change during the last 85 years.

I decided to speak about the microchip—because the microchip may well replace the human race.

Yes, I’m being intentionally provocative here: but it isn’t just because of my nickname (“Dr. Doom”) that I’ve chosen to find the dark shadow in the silver lining of technical progress.

A few weeks ago, Stephen Hawking, the greatest astrophysicist of our time, gave a provocative speech of his own: Hawking suggested that humans should start thinking about colonizing other planets, because eventually artificial intelligence and robots will replace the human race.

It may sound crazy now—but what seems crazy today may not sound so crazy 25, 50, or 100 years from now.

This wave of technological innovation began in 1947 with the invention of the transistor. A little over 10 years later, the microchip appeared; and, soon after that, computers followed. From these basic roots, the rate of innovation simply exploded.

We now live in a digital age where personal computers, supercomputers, robotics, and artificial intelligence are everyday features of our world.

All of these new labor-saving technologies are cheap to deploy—and each will likely play a role in further automating and digitizing our economy.

Without further ado, let’s take a look ahead to what many are calling the Third Industrial Revolution.

Looking back as 2014 winds to a close, I see that a lot has changed in the world economy this year. For example, there is a new perception of the role of technology. Innovators and tech CEOs both seem positively giddy with optimism. And while it is true that some wondrous opportunities may lie ahead, there are also dangers to be wary of as we look to the future.

Technologists claim that the world is on the cusp of a series of major technical breakthroughs. The excitement in this sector isn’t coming just from information technology. It’s also being generated in the fields of biotechnology, energy technology, nanotechnology, and especially from the manufacturing technologies of robotics and automation.

These new manufacturing technologies have spawned a feverish excitement for what some see as a coming revolution in industrial production.

This “Third Industrial Revolution” will provide many investment opportunities—such as green energy development and new kinds of direct investment in those nations most likely to benefit—as well as the potential for a steep rise in returns.

These are life-changing developments, and the consensus among experts is that we will all witness their impact very soon.

The Coming Manufacturing Revolution

In the years ahead, technological improvements in robotics and automation will boost productivity and efficiency, which will translate into economic gains for manufacturers.

It will also benefit highly skilled workers—principally software developers, engineers, and those who work in material science and research. (If you’re a parent or a grandparent, you should encourage the younger generations to explore any talents they possess in these fields.)

Consumers and individuals should also benefit from lower retail prices caused by lower production costs to manufacturers. In short, things will be cheaper.

The quick growth of smart software over the past few decades has been perhaps the most important force shaping the coming manufacturing revolution. The extraordinary rise of the computer software industry has led many of the world’s best minds to focus on the challenges of developing better, smarter, more efficient computer code.

As software development becomes more “glamorous,” the number of bright youngsters studying software engineering increases, creating a virtuous cycle for the software industry.

In addition to software services, a number of new technologies driving the next manufacturing revolution are just now beginning to be felt. They’re like foreshocks, early tremors of the coming earthquake.

On the vanguard of this revolution we find 3D printing. Sometimes 3D printing is called “additive manufacture,” because the process involves computer-controlled robots adding layers of materials to create new things. (Traditional manufacturing usually removes layers from raw material, for example the way a lathe cuts away metal.)

3D printing and related technologies will open the door to advances in manufacturing that have never before been possible:

  • Mechanical engineers will be able to prototype new products more rapidly. New product designs can be created and tested in days rather than months.
  • Manufacturing can be distributed globally to create the greatest efficiencies in marketing and distribution.
  • Finally, customization of products for individual consumers can occur at a price point that was never possible in the past. Not only will things be cheaper, they’ll be your way, right away.

On the plus side of the equation, these changes promise a great boom in productivity. Products will be created more cheaply than ever before. Early adopters of new technology will reap a windfall by perfecting the new techniques. Highly skilled jobs will be created for those educated enough to participate in the new tech-savvy manufacturing world. A few new high-tech manufacturing billionaires may be added to the ranks of the software barons of old.

However, for those workers not fortunate enough to participate in the gains of the new economy, it may feel as though the whole revolution is happening somewhere else. Entire economies risk being destabilized in countries that rely on advanced manufacturing and on service sector jobs. (If you’re reading this, chances are you live in one.)

But remember the dark shadows of those silver linings: with each new gain comes the potential loss of something else.

We know what we have to gain from this automated future. But what, specifically, do we stand to lose?

A Rather Shaky Foundation

In my view, from the economic perspective, the technological forces driving this revolution tend to have the following three downside biases. That is, advances in technology tend to be:

  • capital intensive (favors those who already have money and other resources);
  • skills biased (favors those who already have a high level of technical skill); and
  • labor saving (reduces the total number of jobs in the economy).

The risk is that workers in high-skilled, blue-collar manufacturing jobs will be displaced by machines before the dust settles at the end of the Third Industrial Revolution. We may be heading toward a future where factories consist of one highly skilled engineer running hundreds of machines—with one worker left sweeping the floor.

In fact, the person who sweeps the floor may soon lose that job to a faster, better, cheaper, industrial strength Roomba Robot!

For the last 30 years, emerging-market economies have increasingly displaced developed-market economies in the manufacturing sector as a base of production. This is a story we all know: the transition from the old industrial powers of Western Europe and North America to the new ones in Asia. But despite this shift, developed-market economies have somehow made up for those losses in their labor markets.

Over the last 20 years, the overall unemployment rate in the United States has hovered around 5% on average—except during periods of economic recession, when it has spiked upward for short periods of time.

In general, however, the loss of those manufacturing jobs has not caused catastrophic levels of unemployment.

How? Well, the short answer is the service economy.

Screen Shot 2014 12 09 at 7.47.27 AM

(Of course, this replacement of manufacturing jobs with service jobs has not been equally distributed. Some regions have suffered more than others. For example, the so-called Rust Belt in the upper Midwestern section of the United States has experienced more economic pain than most other regions. But while the local suffering has been great in those regions hardest hit, the overall trend throughout most developed-market economies is that lost manufacturing jobs have been absorbed largely by new jobs created in the service sector.)

In my view, however, there’s no guarantee that this positive scenario—of service-sector jobs making up for lost manufacturing sector jobs—will continue.

In fact, some of the trends mentioned earlier imply that the Third Industrial Revolution will unleash forces that threaten the relatively benign status quo. In addition to the job losses in the manufacturing sector, these trends also threaten the very service-sector jobs that have so far helped us avoid an employment crisis.

To put the coming changes into context, think of what e-books have already done: with a click, you can now download almost any book for about $10 on your iPad or Amazon Kindle.

This is a great service and convenience for consumers. But most of the jobs in the printing and distribution of books—and soon in the newspaper and magazine industry—are already gone. (And so are tons of jobs in the pulp paper industry—though that may come as a relief to environmentalists).

Yet this is all just the tip of the iceberg. The powerful forces unleashed by technology that will radically slash jobs in the future are already upon us. Industries affected will range from health care to retail, education, finance, transportation, real estate, and even government.

One of the affected industries may even be your own.

It’s a Small Step from Offshoring to Automation

Think of the potential risks to service-sector jobs in the context of what I call the “Automated Checkout Economy.” Several decades ago, few people thought that low-paying jobs in the retail sector would be outsourced or eliminated. Technological progress may soon change their tune.

While grocery and checkout jobs cannot be entirely eliminated, at least not quite, technology can assist in drastically reducing the number of human beings needed to fill the remaining positions. A trip into a drug store in New York City, my home for the last several years, will often reveal a single pharmacy clerk watching over four automated checkout terminals, where customers scan and pay for their own purchases. I imagine that you’ve probably seen something similar in your own town.

Other low-wage and labor intensive jobs in retail, such as stocking the shelves of supermarkets with food, will soon be replaced by machines that can do those jobs better and faster than humans could.

This has already begun to happen in traditional brick-and-mortar stores, while automation at online “e-tailers” has gone even further. Giants like Amazon have already built massive robot-staffed warehouses to distribute their orders. One day soon, your friendly neighborhood UPS or FedEx driver delivering those Amazon packages may even be replaced by a drone. And it may be sooner than you think.

In retail, the slashing of middle management jobs has already begun, as computers have become more efficient not just at crunching numbers but at providing managers with the right information at the right time.

Another trend that may result in a decrease in service-sector jobs is something we might call “The Offshoring Pathway to Automation.”

During the first phase of the transition to a truly globalized labor market, New York Timescolumnist Thomas Friedman and others popularized the narrative of high-skilled jobs being outsourced from developed markets to emerging markets. (Friedman’s book The World Is Flat is highly recommended reading on this topic.)

While this trend continues, it supports potential for a still greater transition.

Think, for example, about the process now in place for offshoring medical services. A patient in New York or London may have his MRI sent digitally to, say, Bangalore, where a highly skilled radiologist reads the scan. However, that highly skilled radiologist in Bangalore may only be paid a quarter of what a New York radiologist would earn for reading tests.

It raises the question: how long before a computer can read those images faster, better, and cheaper than that Bangalore radiologist can?

Such a transition is not far off. The offshoring process has already broken down reading an MRI into a series of simple steps resulting in digital output. That digital output can then easily be turned into an input in a fully automated process. This kind of transition, from offshoring to automation, may become a factor in reducing service-sector jobs in developed and emerging markets in the near future.

Work in the Machine Age: Humans Need Not Apply?

The Third Industrial Revolution also coincides with other systemic changes taking place in the economy. Entire industries in the service sector will have to shrink massively for reasons initially unrelated to advances in technology.

Let’s take two of the most obvious examples: the financial-services sector and real estate.

In the years leading up to the economic collapse of 2008-‘09, market bubbles fueled huge run-ups in the prices of financial assets and real estate. With a bubble in asset prices came an explosion in compensation, causing new workers to flood into those sectors. As the last remnants of those bubbles deflate, job cuts in those industries may become inevitable.

But over time, technology may allow even the jobs in real estate and finance to be first outsourced and then totally eliminated.

Today, hundreds of thousands of back-office jobs in the financial sector are outsourced to India and other emerging markets. But tomorrow, a piece of computer code may be able to generate the same sophisticated analytics that some of Wall Street’s highly paid professionals now create.

Real estate—which is now highly labor intensive, with a plethora of agents and brokers—is experiencing a revolution. 12 years ago, in 2002, I was able to buy my first apartment in New York without a real estate agent by using the online New York Times listings. Today, even more sophisticated online tools reduce the need even further for expensive middlemen.

A revolution is also underway in education, which is also currently a very labor-intensive field.

With the growth of ever-more sophisticated online courses, will we still need hundreds of thousands of teachers in the decades to come? And what will all those former teachers do to earn a living instead?

It becomes possible to imagine a future where the top 100 economists in the world, for example, can provide high-quality and cheap online courses in their field. Those changes, however, would mean displacing the jobs of hundreds of thousands of other economics professors in the process.

Indeed, in places like emerging-market Africa, where building brick-and-mortar schools is expensive and where training high-quality teachers is difficult, online courses and cheap tablet computers could gradually begin to replace traditional education, making it even more affordable. Ironically, this would lead to some unemployment, as the demand for highly educated people to fill teaching positions declines.

Governments are shedding labor too, particularly governments burdened by high deficits and debts.

The e-government trend can also lead to labor savings in the way in which government services are provided to the public. You can find tons of public services online and avoid spending hours standing in line in an overcrowded office just to request a few government forms.

Even transportation is being revolutionized by technology. Today a friendly Uber driver or a car-sharing service like Zip Car can replace the need to buy your own car or even rent one. But in a matter of years, driverless cars—courtesy of Google and others—may render the job of a driver or chauffeur obsolete.

So, whether it’s retail or finance, education, health care, transportation, or even government, a massive technological revolution will sharply reduce jobs over time. Low-skilled jobs and medium-skilled white collar jobs will be the first to go, as they have always been.

Industrial Revolutions—Past and Future

In order to better understand the future, it’s helpful to take a look back at the past. During the First Industrial Revolution, which began around the same time as American independence from Great Britain, life began to shift away from agriculture toward increasing industrialization. Farmers moved to cities, and farms became industrialized.

Factories became widespread. A factory owner could take a farmer, perhaps a farmer who could not read or write, and give him a job. New methods—like the division of labor—and new machines allowed that farmer to become more productive. In fact, farmers were able to generate more “output” in a factory than on a farm.

But unlike modern automation, the machines needed to be run by a new generation of workers: Men and women needed to “man” those machines.

Productivity increased—and so did wages.

The Second Industrial Revolution, during the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, was an extension of the first. During those years, there was an explosion in technology and methods of communication. Thanks to the telegraph, the world became “wired” for the first time.

The new advances in technology, however, cut both ways.

Take the case of Frederick Winslow Taylor, a major figure in the Second Industrial Revolution. Taylor, known as the father of scientific management, once wrote that the brawn required for handling pig iron was proof in itself of the intellectual unfitness of ironworkers to manage their own work. This is hardly a democratic sentiment, and it was more or less the common one.

While new “scientific” methods of management increased the productivity of workers, improvements in working conditions lagged behind. (Taylor’s views didn’t help matters.)

Perhaps the takeaway lesson is that it’s easier to improve technical methods of production than workers’ opportunities.

But despite these challenges, the Second Industrial Revolution created a higher demand for labor.

As we sit on the cusp of a Third Industrial Revolution, a revolution that is both industrial and digital in nature, it’s not certain that the demand for labor will continue to grow as technology marches forward—unless the proper policies to nurture job growth are put in place.

The world began to change during the first Digital Revolution—during the rise of the Internet in the late ‘90s. Then, the digital divide between those who knew how to use computers and those who didn’t led to an income gap between more-skilled workers and less-skilled workers.

At the extreme, as I mentioned in my introduction, some serious thinkers are even worried about technology not only replacing humans in jobs—but actually replacing humans entirely.

The implications of artificial intelligence, not just for jobs, but human life, are now being pondered by some of the best minds in technology.

There used to be a science fiction term for a state where human beings were no longer able to control technology: It was called “the Singularity.”

In the future, this Singularity may no longer be just science fiction.

Will There Be a Green Revolution?

Of course, there are more optimistic sides of this story. Some of those perspectives show a much rosier picture. The green revolution in technology is a perfect example.

(Jeremy Rifkin is a believer in this view. In his 2011 book The Third Industrial Revolution, he makes a case for his bullish outlook. Rifkin is optimistic about a great many things: green renewable energy, urbanization of structural power plants, hydrogen cells, and an Internet grid for power transmission and distribution.)

These new technologies carry with them the promise of cleaner and more efficient energy.

This objective, of course, could not be more crucial. The search for green energy technology has become a global goal. The evidence of environmental damage, caused by pollution and the burning of fossil fuels, is now beyond question.To cite just one sobering example of the size of the challenge, a study by the World Health Organization (WHO) recently concluded that one in eight deaths were caused by air pollution. This is especially true in the developing world, where environmental hazards tend to be significant.

As an example, air pollution in Beijing, where senior Chinese government officials live and work, has reached dangerous levels. The pollution in Beijing is now a practical threat to the Chinese economy and to China’s plans for future development.

The Chinese government has begun to come down hard on its domestic polluters by enhancing the power of the state to regulate pollution. In light of the growing pressure to restrict environmental pollution, it seems reasonable to expect that there will be intensified research of green technologies. Hopefully, this research will address the environmental challenges at their root, rather than just fixing the damage of their effects.

Automation and Rising Inequality

While the odds for a green technology breakthrough during the Third Industrial Revolution may be good, it seems very highly likely that serious challenges will follow in the wake of further developments in labor-reducing technologies.

As more and more workers are displaced, governments will need to search urgently for new solutions to the problems of automation.

During the First Industrial Revolution, some of the worst forms of winner-take-all capitalism festered in the newly industrialized cities of Europe and the United States. The rate of social and economic inequality increased rapidly. Despite the political opposition to change, a series of economic shocks ultimately convinced enlightened people in the US and Europe of the necessity of the social-welfare state.

The benefits that workers take for granted in developed markets—restrictions on child labor, pensions, retirement benefits, unemployment benefits—were all created out of necessity.

Enlightened social-welfare policies were ultimately vindicated, not just morally but practically. In places where social reform was not enacted, on the other hand, more destructive forms of change took place. (The most extreme case of this destruction was, obviously, the rise of Bolshevism in Russia.)

Now the concern is that technology, together with other factors, is leading to a sharp rise in income and wealth inequality. There is a further risk that inequality will also lead to social and political instability.

The redistribution of wealth—from labor to capital and from wages to profits—may even undermine growth. This makes perfect sense when we consider that the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few tends to reduce household consumption. In the United States, household consumption makes up more than two-thirds of our total GDP.

The rise in inequality was initially the result of trade and globalization, such as jobs being offshored to emerging markets. However, the technological innovation we’re witnessing now has the potential to seriously worsen that inequality—especially when those innovations are, as we discussed earlier, capital intensive, skills biased, and labor saving.

The view is even more pessimistic when you factor in the winner-take-all effects—also known as the so-called “superstar phenomenon.”

Thanks to these winner-take-all effects, the top earners in any field now get the lion’s share of the compensation. After making a windfall profit, the “winners” are then able to use those riches to influence politicians and write their own legislation, which creates even more inequality.

In the 1930s, John Maynard Keynes had a more optimistic view of the impact of technology: he argued that eventually we could all work 15 hours a week and spend the rest of our time in leisure—like creating art and writing poetry.

But in the Brave New World of labor-saving technology, it seems, 20% of the labor force will work 120 hours a week while the other 80% will have no jobs and no income.

So the ideal world of Keynes may turn out to become a nightmare.

Despite the rapid rate of change and the many uncertainties that lie ahead, the past can help to serve as a model for the future. Governments have a decided role to play in making that future livable—as they once understood. In that spirit, we must search for political and policy solutions to the coming challenges of the Third Industrial Revolution and promote them where we can.

This is not, after all, the first time we’ve faced such problems. At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, world leaders stepped up to the plate and came face to face with the horrors of industrialization. Child labor was abolished throughout the developed world, work hours were made humane, and a social safety net was put in place to protect both vulnerable workers and the larger (often fragile) economy.

The Past as Prologue

Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers observed not long ago that we don’t yet have an Otto von Bismarck or a Teddy Roosevelt or a William Gladstone to mediate the current revolution now underway in the technology sector. The Canadian writer and politician Michael Ignatieff picked up on a similar theme in a Financial Times op-ed called “We need a new Bismarck to tame the machines.”

The references to these political giants of the 19th and 20th centuries are revealing. Otto von Bismarck, the father of the unified German state, is usually credited with the creation of the modern social-welfare state in the 1880s. (He’s also credited with militarizing Germany as he unified it—but let’s stick with his good works for now.)

At about the same time as Bismarck in Germany, British Prime Minister William Gladstone was reforming the most archaic aspects of the British electoral system. Ultimately, Gladstone’s work led to a great democratization and distribution of economic benefits in what was then the world’s leading industrial nation.

Here in the United States, Theodore Roosevelt is perhaps best remembered for breaking up the large industrial monopolies then known as trusts. And we could also add Franklin Roosevelt to the list who, in the tradition of his older cousin, sought to reform the worst excesses of capitalism during the Great Depression.

As we begin the search for enlightened solutions to the challenges that the Third Industrial Revolution presents, some of the overall themes begin to emerge. The first and most important characteristic is that the solution must channel the gains of technology to a broader base of the population than it has done so far. [The information age monetizes the value of data. So, the question is whether each of us will be paid for the data we provide to the ‘social network.’ Another way of putting this is how can you get your piece of the Google-Facebook-Alibaba pie? A free browser seems a pittance. How about a share of Google?]

To make that happen, the solution must have a major educational component. In order to create broad-based prosperity, workers need the skills to participate in the wealth that capitalism generates. That is a major challenge in a world where technology is changing the labor markets at a dizzying and increasing pace.

Workable solutions must address the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.

The way ahead cannot be a naïve “Great Leap Forward”: it must embrace the dynamics and creativity of free markets. On the other hand, while the solutions we must pursue can leverage the ideas of enlightened capitalists, those solutions must not rely solely on the generosity of capitalists to succeed.

That most fragile balance—between the freedom of markets and the prosperity of workers—must be sought and found.

Make no mistake: The machines are coming. The question for us is what kind of welcome to prepare for them.

This article originally appeared at Roubini’s Edge. Copyright 2014.

%d bloggers like this: